NationStates Jolt Archive

According to The Economist, only twelve countries deserve a score of 9 or higher (out of 10) in terms of democracy.

The top 10 are Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada and Switzerland. In joint eleventh place are Ireland and New Zealand. All other countries rank lower than 9.

A total of 29 countries are described as "functioning democracies"; Uruguay, ranked 29th, has a score of 7.96. Then come "flawed democracies" and "hybrid regimes", bringing the total number of democracies to 112. (Iraq is ranked 112th, with a score of 4.01)

Then come 55 "authoritarian regimes".

This map shows the top 12 in palest blue, compared with other countries:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2425/tbdct7.jpg

Full list here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index).

democracy is overrated.

I don't know why, but when I read 'functioning democracy', I started to laugh... It just sounds so funny.

Is Belgium actually functioning as a democracy?

UK comes behind Poland - a bit worrying.

Yay for Costa Rica.

It's nice to know how close the UK is to being a 'flawed democracy'.

I wonder why NZ only got 11th. I can't think of anything terribly wrong with the functioning of it's democracy.
Unless they're arguing that MMP has made it less democratic - something which is highly debatable. I would argue that it's made it more democratic in that it's more representative and there's less marginalised sectors of voters, though I can see that it does have the possibility of a small party holding the balance of power. But what has happened there is that any misuse/abuse of said balance has led to punishment at the next elections by the voters.

UK comes behind Poland - a bit worrying.

Worrying, but not particularly surprising. Our so-called 'democracy' has been in need of a rebuild from the ground up for decades. If you think that's worrying you should see our privacy figures (on Privacy International or something like that, it was a while since I looked).

Go Ireland!


Also, North Korea came in last. Is anyone surprised?

I wonder why NZ only got 11th. I can't think of anything terribly wrong with the functioning of it's democracy.

Well, 11th out of 167 isn't bad. NZ ranks in the highest category.

If you want to know how the Economist calculates it all, they have a PDF here (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf).


Unless they're arguing that MMP has made it less democratic - something which is highly debatable. I would argue that it's made it more democratic in that it's more representative and there's less marginalised sectors of voters, though I can see that it does have the possibility of a small party holding the balance of power. But what has happened there is that any misuse/abuse of said balance has led to punishment at the next elections by the voters.

I would agree with you on those points. I wish we had some form of proportional representation in the Assemblée Nationale. It would avoid us ending up with a situation where the UMP (Sarkozy's party) has an absolute majority of seats, despite not having received an absolute majority of the vote.

I wonder why NZ only got 11th. I can't think of anything terribly wrong with the functioning of it's democracy.
Unless they're arguing that MMP has made it less democratic - something which is highly debatable. I would argue that it's made it more democratic in that it's more representative and there's less marginalised sectors of voters, though I can see that it does have the possibility of a small party holding the balance of power. But what has happened there is that any misuse/abuse of said balance has led to punishment at the next elections by the voters.
I'd be more than happy to have MMP in the UK at the next election, for what it's worth.

Also, North Korea came in last. Is anyone surprised?

Actually yes. Considering the level of the information blackout in that country, I was expecting North Korea to be in that greyed-out "no information" level.

I wonder though: what works so well in Scandinavia?

THE WORLD IN 2OO7 Democracy index 3
Table 1
Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index 2006
Category scores
Overall I Electoral process II Functioning III Political IV Political V Civil
Rank score and pluralism of government participation culture liberties
Full democracies
Sweden 1 9.88 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.38 10.00
Iceland 2 9.71 10.00 9.64 8.89 10.00 10.00
Netherlands 3 9.66 9.58 9.29 9.44 10.00 10.00
Norway 4 9.55 10.00 9.64 10.00 8.13 10.00
Denmark 5 9.52 10.00 9.64 8.89 9.38 9.71
Finland 6 9.25 10.00 10.00 7.78 8.75 9.71
Luxembourg 7 9.10 10.00 9.29 7.78 8.75 9.71
Australia 8 9.09 10.00 8.93 7.78 8.75 10.00
Canada 9 9.07 9.17 9.64 7.78 8.75 10.00
Switzerland 10 9.02 9.58 9.29 7.78 8.75 9.71
Ireland 11= 9.01 9.58 8.93 7.78 8.75 10.00
New Zealand 11= 9.01 10.00 8.57 8.33 8.13 10.00
Germany 13 8.82 9.58 8.57 7.78 8.75 9.41
Austria 14 8.69 9.58 8.21 7.78 8.75 9.12
Malta 15 8.39 9.17 8.21 6.11 8.75 9.71
Spain 16 8.34 9.58 7.86 6.11 8.75 9.41
US 17 8.22 8.75 7.86 7.22 8.75 8.53
Czech Republic 18 8.17 9.58 6.79 7.22 8.13 9.12
Portugal 19 8.16 9.58 8.21 6.11 7.50 9.41
Belgium 20= 8.15 9.58 8.21 6.67 6.88 9.41
Japan 20= 8.15 9.17 7.86 5.56 8.75 9.41

Not terribly surprised at the top 10. Glad the US made the top 10%.

Japan beat out the UK? WTF!?!?! :eek: I am very surprised at that. I'm surprised Japan even made the functioning demos....

Looking over the criteria, I'm most surprised that Japan got almost full points on electoral process/pluralism and civil liberties (counting up using their point system I'd give Japan 6.5 and 8 respectively).

I looked at the history of the wiki page, and the last three edits had reordered several entries. Comparing to the PDF, the version prior (identical to a somewhat earlier one marked "Undid vandalism") was the one matching it, and so I changed the page back to that one. So to those who didn't read the PDF, note that some things now differ.

Not terribly surprised at the top 10. Glad the US made the top 10%.

Japan beat out the UK? WTF!?!?! :eek: I am very surprised at that. I'm surprised Japan even made the functioning demos....

Looking over the criteria, I'm most surprised that Japan got almost full points on electoral process/pluralism and civil liberties (counting up using their point system I'd give Japan 6.5 and 8 respectively).

Why do you say that? Forgive he, the ignorant, who has no real experience with Japan.

Actually yes. Considering the level of the information blackout in that country, I was expecting North Korea to be in that greyed-out "no information" level.

I wonder though: what works so well in Scandinavia?
Their issues are so unimportant that even the people can be trusted to vote on them.

47 Israel 7.28 Flawed democracy

Oh my!! :eek:

Wohoo! Finland was 6th. Sweden till sucks even it was first.

Wohoo! Finland was 6th. Sweden till sucks even it was first.
Heh, you were part of us for over 700 years.
And we are going to take you back, sooner or later...
Beware, for the Swedish Empire will rise again! :p

Actually yes. Considering the level of the information blackout in that country, I was expecting North Korea to be in that greyed-out "no information" level.

I wonder though: what works so well in Scandinavia?

A high degree of social unity and harmony. Plus a cultural emphasis on social cohesion. Plus ancient traditions that foster democratic ideals.

47 Israel 7.28 Flawed democracy

Oh my!! :eek:

93 Venezuela 5.42 Hybrid Regime

Oh my!! :eek:

The only time I laughed was when I read that Iraq was a hybrid government. A hybrid between democracy and...and what? An authoritarian regime? If you ask me, Iraq is a highly flawed democracy. It is a democracy, but one with extremely little control.

Is Belgium actually functioning as a democracy?

Hey - it is what the people want ;)

"#79. Palestine - Flawed Democracy."

Well, yes, I suppose having your two main political parties in a state of armed conflict with each other is rather a flaw...
Seriously, how the heck did it get such a relatively high rating?

93 Venezuela 5.42 Hybrid Regime

Oh my!! :eek:
Hybrid regime is better than the dictatorship that it was prior to Chavez?

"Full democracies", "Flawed Democracies", and "Hybrid Regimes" and "Authoritarian Regimes"

Sounds like it's the NationStates.net nation categorization scheme that didn't make the grade.

Sounds like it's the NationStates.net nation categorization scheme that didn't make the grade.

It's not "full" democracy, it's "functioning".... excuse me a moment... I still find it amusing. Heh... functioning.

It's nice to know how close the UK is to being a 'flawed democracy'.
That's because it's really an elected dictatorship.

The US is only a 'functioning' democracy? I'll live. (In fact, I'd live even happier if they made senators appointed by the state legislatures again. More impure democracy for me, please.)

Hybrid regime is better than the dictatorship that it was prior to Chavez?
You've gotta be joking.

Chavez was preceded by a combination of independents and Social-Democrats, not dictators. Caldera, Perez and Luschini were all elected, and Lepage and Velaquez were appointed to short terms by the Congress as a result of issues Perez had with corruption and controlling the military.

I see no dictators.

Also, North Korea came in last. Is anyone surprised?
Actually, yes. I expected North Korea to come in second to last, above Somalia.

After all, in North Korea you risk getting shot for disagreeing with the government, but in Somalia you risk getting shot for no reason at all.

That's because it's really an elected dictatorship.
Yep.

Actually, yes. I expected North Korea to come in second to last, above Somalia.

After all, in North Korea you risk getting shot for disagreeing with the government, but in Somalia you risk getting shot for no reason at all.
Ah, but in Somalia everybody gets to shoot, hence the people enjoy a Democratization of Violence, whereas the North Koreans don't even get that.

According to The Economist...

A total of 29 countries are described as "functioning democracies"; Uruguay, ranked 29th, has a score of 7.96. Then come "flawed democracies" and "hybrid regimes", bringing the total number of democracies to 112. (Iraq is ranked 112th, with a score of 4.01)

Then come 55 "authoritarian regimes".

This map shows the top 12 in palest blue, compared with other countries:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2425/tbdct7.jpgI never hear of "The economist".. but just looking at the map palettes.. I can now officially tell you its total Bullshit.

Here are the Keys, Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela .. are ranked lowest in South America. (the only 3 dark-blue in SouthAmerica)

Iran is ranked equal with Saudi Arabia.
Russia is ranked better than Iran.
Russia is ranked equal with Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela.

How the hell can they call Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela FLAWED Democracies.. while calling the US a NON-Flawed Democracy.

I never hear of "The economist".. but just looking at the map.. I can officially tell you its total Bullshit.

That was a particularly persuasive and well-thought out argument.

I never hear of "The economist".. but just looking at the map.. I can officially tell you its total Bullshit.


How could you have NOT heard of The Economist?

http://www.economist.com/

For someone into politics, I've had expected a little more. It's a major US publication.

FLAWED Democracies[/B].. while calling the US a NON-Flawed Democracy.

Because the USA has a longer history of stable democracy than Bolibia, Ecuador and Venezuela do? Admittedly, this is partly BECAUSE of the USA's actions in South America, but that doesn't really effect the list.

Wohoo! Finland was 6th. Sweden till sucks even it was first.

What is it between Swedes and Finns? A Swedish friend of mine jokes about Finns.

I never hear of "The economist".. but just looking at the map palettes.. I can now officially tell you its total Bullshit.


I can officially write anything you say off as totally uninformed.

The Economist is one of the best and most well-respected publications on international politics and economics in the world. It has a tradition of excellence that has lasted well over a hundred years, and an awful lot of credibility and honesty, both in the UK (where it was founded) and abroad.

How could you have NOT heard of The Economist?
meh..

I dont know..
Maybe because they dont have a good enough name for the YahooNEWS hub..

but Looking at the map.. I have not missed much. ;)
..
For someone into politics, I've had expected a little more. It's a major US publication.ill send you a bottle of tequila to make it up.. :D

I never hear of "The economist".. but just looking at the map palettes.. I can now officially tell you its total Bullshit.
It's a major, respected publication in the anglosphere.

Here are the Keys, Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela .. are ranked lowest in South America. (the only 3 dark-blue in SouthAmerica)

Iran is ranked equal with Saudi Arabia.
Russia is ranked better than Iran.
Russia is ranked equal with Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela.
Neither of these countries strike me as the home of liberal democracy.

How the hell can they call Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela FLAWED Democracies.. while calling the US a NON-Flawed Democracy.
No matter how much spin you put on it, the USA, while by no means perfect, functions better as a democracy than Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela.

meh..

I dont know..
Maybe because they dont have a good enough name for the YahooNEWS hub..



Either that or The Economist is substantially better than to condescend to allow their articles to be on the Yahoo News hub.

The Economist is one of the best and most well-respected publications on international politics and economics in the world. It has a tradition of excellence that has lasted well over a hundred years, and an awful lot of credibility and honesty.this picture speaks louder than all your -honey melting- words..

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2425/tbdct7.jpg

this picture speaks louder than all your -honey melting- words..

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2425/tbdct7.jpg
And this proves your point how, exactly?

this picture speaks louder than all your -honey melting- words..

The picture seems quite correct. Assuming you have read the criteria by which they ranked.

What is it between Swedes and Finns? A Swedish friend of mine jokes about Finns.
Childishness. Mature people tend to see we are almost exactly alike.

this picture speaks louder than all your -honey melting- words..

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2425/tbdct7.jpg

No, no it doesn't. Not in the slightest.

The only thing that's saying anything is how desperately you're clinging to your preconceived notions about who is democratic and who is not, regardless of displayed facts.

Because the USA has a longer history of stable democracy than Bolibia, Ecuador and Venezuela do? Admittedly, this is partly BECAUSE of the USA's actions in South America, but that doesn't really effect the list.If this is about history.. Then why is Eastern Europe ranked about equal with Mexico. ??

No, no it doesn't. Not in the slightest.your reply has a very powerful message.. I dont know what it is.. but i am sure it hides a meaningful statement.. somewhere inside.

:D ;) :D :D

meh..

I dont know..
Maybe because they dont have a good enough name for the YahooNEWS hub..

but Looking at the map.. I have not missed much. ;)
..
ill send you a bottle of tequila to make it up.. :D

Just because some nations are the same colour doesn't mean a thing. They are shaded based on a gradient scale. Sure it looks damning without statistics to back it up, but once you look at it with the statistics, you realise that despite certain nations having the same colour, they didn't score the same.

As for your news source, you could stand to broaden your scope and horizons. You might want to look beyond YahooNews, not exactly what I'd call stellar reporting. At least use Reuters or AP if you need a generic source.

If this is about history.. Then Eastern Europe ranked equal with Mexico. ??

Did you read the explanation for the ranking ?

LOL.. you edited your "No, no it doesn't. Not in the slightest." silly reply.. good for you. ;)The only thing that's saying anything is how desperately you're clinging to your preconceived notions about who is democratic and who is not, regardless of displayed facts.What displayed Facts makes Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela Flawed Democracies while -at the same time- making the US a Non-Flawed Democracy?

Did you read the explanation for the ranking ?yes


AND I have spent significant chunks of my life in the US and in South America...

You might want to look beyond YahooNews, not exactly what I'd call stellar reporting. At least use Reuters or AP if you need a generic source.AP and Reuters are 75% of the YahooNEWS hub.

How could you have NOT heard of The Economist?

http://www.economist.com/

For someone into politics, I've had expected a little more. It's a major US publication.

The Economist is British.

I never hear of "The economist".. but just looking at the map palettes.. I can now officially tell you its total Bullshit.

Here are the Keys, Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela .. are ranked lowest in South America. (the only 3 dark-blue in SouthAmerica)

Iran is ranked equal with Saudi Arabia.
Russia is ranked better than Iran.
Russia is ranked equal with Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela.

How the hell can they call Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela FLAWED Democracies.. while calling the US a NON-Flawed Democracy.

Maybe you should read the criteria that the Econmist uses to measure democracy in order to justify the rankings, rather than basing it solely off of the colours in a simplified diagram?

Iran is ranked above Saudi Arabia, not equal. Neither are considered democracies. Iran scores poorly for pluralism and civil liberties - not exactly surprising. Functioning of government and political participation are also low, probably due to the large control that various religious and military groups have in Iran rather than the official government. Saudi Arabia on the other hand scores pathetically in all categories, reflecting the sorry state of affairs in that country.

Venezuela and Bolivia are both considered democracies and very similar ones at that (the top 3 ratings are all still democracies, just at varying levels). The ranking reflects the good quality electoral process of Venezuela, but it gets brought down by other factors.

AP and Reuters are 75% of the YahooNEWS hub.
Ok, fine then... BBC, CBC, CP... heh. ;)

The Economist is British.
My bad. It seems to hit Canadian shelves very frequently... so I wasn't sure. :) Thanks for the heads up.

Maybe you should read the criteria that the Econmist uses to measure democracy in order to justify the rankings, rather than basing it solely off of the colours in a simplified diagram?the colors are based on the rankings.

Ok, fine then... BBC, CBC, CP... heh. ;)i will.. thanks.

the colors are based on the rankings.

Yes, but there are only four rankings. So two nations of the same colour are within the same quarter of all nations around the world - so the country ranked 113th is the same colour as the country ranked 167th, despite the fact they are nothing alike. Hence: simplified diagram.

The Economist is one of the best and most well-respected publications on international politics and economics in the world.

The thing is, you shouldn't read only the Economist. They are very heavily biased towards their favoured economic ideology, and will interpret any story to make it fit within that bias. I read it from time to time, but quite quickly it feels like being thumped over the head with the Wealth of Nations by an automaton. Its ideological repetitiveness is tiring.

I wonder though: what works so well in Scandinavia?
Janteloven

Janteloven
LOL

You earned a taco!

The thing is, you shouldn't read only the Economist. They are very heavily biased towards their favoured economic ideology, and will interpret any story to make it fit within that bias. I read it from time to time, but quite quickly it feels like being thumped over the head with the Wealth of Nations by an automaton. Its ideological repetitiveness is tiring.

While, yes, a diversity of sources is a good idea, the Economist is probably one of the best sources available.

I mean, that's like saying you shouldn't only eat broccoli, it's very good for you, but you have to have a diverse diet.

LOL.. you edited your "No, no it doesn't. Not in the slightest." silly reply.. good for you. ;)What displayed Facts makes Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela Flawed Democracies while -at the same time- making the US a Non-Flawed Democracy?

If you'd like to read their methodology, feel free. I'm not going to summarize and reiterate it for you though, because it's already available.

Is Belgium actually functioning as a democracy?


Yes, why not? There are some problems, but they are being taken care of, democratically (which often includes long talks and stuff like that). If we were a dictatorship there wouldn't be so much troubles because the "elections" would be decided before they even started.
How do they measure stuff like "democracy" anyway?

Yes, why not? There are some problems, but they are being taken care of, democratically (which often includes long talks and stuff like that). If we were a dictatorship there wouldn't be so much troubles because the "elections" would be decided before they even started.
How do they measure stuff like "democracy" anyway?

They define a democracy based on five criteria - electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture and civil liberties - then conduct a survey in each country using a questionnaire which attempts to rate the country in each of the five criteria. You can read about the methodology and the full rankings here (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf).

More than that, OD, who, precisely, do you think I'd trust more? A publication with over a hundred years of first rate journalism, employing some of the best economic and political experts in the field, or some random guy on the internet who posts articles from Yahoo-braindead-News? I think the Economist has far greater authority than you do on this matter.

Before you complain that the US shouldn't be ranked higher than venezuela, keepm in mind that just a few days ago Venezuela was *this* close to becoming a dictatorship.

There's also the fact that in its 200+ years, the US had zero military takeovers.

your reply has a very powerful message.. I dont know what it is.. but i am sure it hides a meaningful statement.. somewhere inside.

:D ;) :D :D

That you're being dumb. That's the powerful message.

More than that, OD, who, precisely, do you think I'd trust more? A publication with over a hundred years of first rate journalism, employing some of the best economic and political experts in the field, or you. ???Good question.. you could make a poll about it. :D

Why do you say that? Forgive he, the ignorant, who has no real experience with Japan.

Essentially I went through their criteria and ranked Japan according to my personal experience. Part of the problem may be Japan's preference for what seems to be as opposed to what is.

I never hear of "The economist"..

Never heard of the Economist. Not surprised considering...


What is it between Swedes and Finns? A Swedish friend of mine jokes about Finns.

Well, having a few friends from both places, my understanding is it's mostly the sibling rivalry syndrome writ large, much as it is between Japan, Korea, and China...

I can officially write anything you say off as totally uninformed.

The Economist is one of the best and most well-respected publications on international politics and economics in the world. It has a tradition of excellence that has lasted well over a hundred years, and an awful lot of credibility and honesty, both in the UK (where it was founded) and abroad.

Indeed, indeed, and indeed.

If you'd like to read their methodology, feel free. I'm not going to summarize and reiterate it for you though, because it's already available.

The methodology seems good. But like I said, I questioon how well it's been applied in some cases...

That you're being dumb. That's the powerful message.heck.. you almost convinced all of NSG :D






BTW, the question still stands:
No, no it doesn't. Not in the slightest.

The only thing that's saying anything is how desperately you're clinging to your preconceived notions about who is democratic and who is not, regardless of displayed facts.What displayed Facts? What displayed Facts makes Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela Flawed Democracies while -at the same time- making the US a Non-Flawed Democracy?

heck.. you almost convinced NSG :D


I don't think NSG needed convincing, to be honest. You seem to think your mere assertion that the index is "bullshit" qualifies as an argument, but it doesn't.

What is it between Swedes and Finns? A Swedish friend of mine jokes about Finns.

Oh, it´s just like a big family up here. Norway is the rich, funny-talking Grandpa, Denmark the crazy uncle, Sweden the slightly boring, workaholic father, Finland the teen with megalomania and inferiority complex and Iceland the five-year old little girl who everyone loves.
All families have their family tiffs. :D

I don't think NSG needed convincing, to be honest. You seem to think your mere assertion that the index is "bullshit" qualifies as an argument, but it doesn't.my assertion does not qualify a an argument.


it qualifies as an assertion. ;)

If a Democracy index qualifies correctly 70% of the Countries in the World.. It may be a good index for you.
But for me.. its worthless.

Ever heard of the FIFA rankings? that bullshit index qualifies correctly 80% of the Countries.. and its worthless too.

More than that, OD, who, precisely, do you think I'd trust more? A publication with over a hundred years of first rate journalism, employing some of the best economic and political experts in the field, or some random guy on the internet who posts articles from Yahoo-braindead-News?

And has never heard of the economist ;)

What displayed Facts makes Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela Flawed Democracies while -at the same time- making the US a Non-Flawed Democracy?


Why don't you read it for yourself? (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf)

I never hear of "The economist".. but just looking at the map palettes.. I can now officially tell you its total Bullshit.

Here are the Keys, Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela .. are ranked lowest in South America. (the only 3 dark-blue in SouthAmerica)

Iran is ranked equal with Saudi Arabia.
Russia is ranked better than Iran.
Russia is ranked equal with Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela.

How the hell can they call Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela FLAWED Democracies.. while calling the US a NON-Flawed Democracy.

Yours is the bullshit, as usual. Just because they're leftist they are more democratic than the US? Think before you vent. The way that Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia treat their press is on its own enough to place these countries in such positions. Perhaps YOU, american boy, wouldn't mind not having the right to openly criticize your silly president, but that doesn't make these government atitudes be democratic.

On the other news, Morales plans to install the same rejected constitutional reforms of Chavez by referendum (wants a hold on power that one too), Chavez still hasn't given up his reforms (por ahora, he said) and will end up putting them to work by decree (he definitely has the power to do so), and Correa seems like he will keep sueing any Ecuatorian journalists that dare to speak against him.

The way that Russia deals with these elections, with a presidencial hand on the ballot and with the other on their puppets of a people, is no different than the way these countries deal with it. Oh, and Iran? Try being a woman politician in Iran, then try the same in Russia, and come back here to share your experiences with us.

Blame it on the Economist if you will, but they're not alone in their opinion, as this Freedom House research says.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World_%28report%29

PS: Note on the Economist's graph how India's light blue shines amidst those darkish blue countries of Southern Asia. Keep it up, India!

keepm in mind that just a few days ago Venezuela was *this* close to becoming a dictatorship.


No it wasn't. And the fact that the constitutional changes -which would not have made Venezuela a "dictatorship"- were defeated in a referendum should show you how absurd your statement is.


Well, having a few friends from both places, my understanding is it's mostly the sibling rivalry syndrome writ large, much as it is between Japan, Korea, and China...


My (admittedly limited) experience suggests to me that anti-Japanese feelings among some Koreans and Chinese are rather stronger than "anti-Finnish" feelings among Swedes (or "anti-Swedish" feelings among Finns).

Oh, it´s just like a big family up here. Norway is the rich, funny-talking Grandpa, Denmark the crazy uncle, Sweden the slightly boring, workaholic father, Finland the teen with megalomania and inferiority complex and Iceland the five-year old little girl who everyone loves.
All families have their family tiffs. :D

LOL. Thank you for that interesting way of putting it. :D

Yours is the bullshit, as usual. Just because they're leftist they are more democratic than the US? Think before you vent.read the thread again, I never posted "the Leftist Democracies are more Democratic." or anything like that.
Do quote me or take it back.

I am asking why is "The Econominst" proclaiming the American Leftist Democracies to be FLAWED.. and at the same claiming the US to be Non-Flawed.

I am not claiming the higher Moral ground for the Leftist Democracies.. I am asking "Why are you (and The Economist) claiming a Lower ground for the Leftist Democracies?"

democracy is overrated.

right on :D

So am I to gather that the politics of the state affect it's ranking?

Every politician in the US is elected by the people. Of course there have been cases of voter fraud, the shining example being in Washington, where dead people elected the Democratic governor, so is one to assume that those are the flaws they speak of?

So am I to gather that the politics of the state affect it's ranking?

Every politician in the US is elected by the people. Of course there have been cases of voter fraud, the shining example being in Washington, where dead people elected the Democratic governor, so is one to assume that those are the flaws they speak of?

Read the document ;) It is not that big and quite clear.

I did. I just don't understand how the US would not be near the top of the list itself, unless certain other nations had zero voter fraud. Saying a country is less of a democracy for not having gay marriage when it's the will of the people is pretty messed up, though I support it myself.

So am I to gather that the politics of the state affect it's ranking?

Every politician in the US is elected by the people. Of course there have been cases of voter fraud, the shining example being in Washington, where dead people elected the Democratic governor, so is one to assume that those are the flaws they speak of?I did read the Economist methodology.. and NO, so far they are not taking into consideration your example of voter fraud and dead people electing US governors..

read the thread again, I never posted "the Leftist Democracies are more Democratic." or anything like that.
Do quote me or take it back.

I am asking why is "The Econominst" proclaiming the American Leftist Democracies to be FLAWED.. and at the same claiming the US to be Non-Flawed.

I am not claiming the higher Moral ground for the Leftist Democracies.. I am asking "Why are you (and The Economist) claiming a Lower ground for the Leftist Democracies?"

As I've told you, read the report I linked to. It contains the reasoning for the rankings.

Not all leftist democracies are ranked low. Costa Rica, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil and Panama are the five top ranked Latin American countries and all have leftist or center left governments.

As I've told you, read the report I linked to. It contains the reasoning for the rankings.If you read the post just above yours.. you will see that I did read it.

here let me quote myself to save you the trouble ;)I did read the Economist methodology.. and NO, so far they are not taking into consideration your example of voter fraud and dead people electing US governors..

If you red the post just above yours.. you will see that I did read it. :)

I did read the Economist methodology.. and NO, so far they are not taking into consideration your example of voter fraud and dead people electing US governors..

You didn't read it closely enough.

"Are elections for the national legislature and head of government fair?
1: No major irregularities in the voting process
0.5: Significant irregularities occur (intimidation, fraud), but do not affect significantly the overall outcome
0: Major irregularities occur and affect the outcome"

So yes, it does take into account the effects of voter fraud and dead people voting. It also takes into account dozens of other factors.

Uhm, yay Sweden.

Belize isn't listed. I knew I couldn't trust those guys.

You didn't read it closely enough.

"Are elections for the national legislature and head of government fair?
1: No major irregularities in the voting process
0.5: Significant irregularities occur (intimidation, fraud), but do not affect significantly the overall outcome
0: Major irregularities occur and affect the outcome"

So yes, it does take into account the effects of voter fraud and dead people voting. It also takes into account dozens of other factors.if you read his post his example is about US voter fraud and Dead people electing a US Governor.So am I to gather that the politics of the state affect it's ranking?

Every politician in the US is elected by the people. Of course there have been cases of voter fraud, the shining example being in Washington, where dead people elected the Democratic governor, so is one to assume that those are the flaws they speak of?
.
Had they taken that into consideration.. the US would be ranked lower than Venezuela.

I cannot understand how Turkey is worse off than bolivia Turkey is clearly better than a hybrid

I cannot understand how Turkey is worse off than bolivia Turkey is clearly better than a hybridmeh..

I wouldt worry. For me this "The Economist" rankings has zero credibility.

besides them giving good scores to traditionally democratic European Countries + Canada +Oz (easy call anyways)... these rankings should be double checked.

if you read his post his example is specifically about US voter fraud and Dead people electing a US Governor.
.
Had they taken that into consideration.. the US would be ranked lower than Venezuela.

So what you are saying is that this one factor is the absolute difference between democracy in the US and Venezuela? Thats not very scientific. You might want to consider, for example, the other factors listed.

"Can citizens cast their vote free of significant threats to their security from state or non-state bodies?"

Given the recent violence from both sides in Venezuela during the referendum thats a resounding no. I don't recall widespread violence at the last US election.

"Is the process of financing political parties transparent and generally accepted?"

Chavez himself regularly complains about the source of financing for the opposition, claiming shady deals done with certain foreign powers. In the US financiers are usually clear.

So there you go - you've shown me one factor where Venezuela has the edge and I've shown you two where the US does. Beginning to see why the US is ranked above Venezuela?

So what you are saying is that this one factor is the absolute difference between democracy in the US and Venezuela?It was his (HSH Prince Eric) example.
Read the thread, I never posted that or anything like that.

Do quote me or take it back.

It was his (HSH Prince Eric) example.
Read the thread, I never posted that or anything like that.

Do quote me or take it back.

Had they taken that into consideration.. the US would be ranked lower than Venezuela.

You said it right there - had they taken voter fraud into consideration, the US would be ranked lower.

You claim they didn't, so the US is ranked higher.

So you are claiming that the Economist discounting voter fraud is the reason why they ranked the US higher.

You said it right there -
What I did not say is:So what you are saying is that this one factor is the absolute difference between democracy in the US and Venezuela?

i Bolded red.. maybe that way you get it.

I did post that,What I did not say is:

i Bolded red.. maybe that way you get it.

Yes you did. Had you said 'had they taken that and other factors into consideration.. the US would be ranked lower than Venezuela' then I would have asked you to specify these other factors. You didn't say that - you mentioned only voter fraud.

- you mentioned only voter fraud.US Voter fraud and dead people electing US governors is HSH-Prince-Eric example.

I am talking about you repeatedly trying to portray me as saying this one factor is the absolute difference, when I am fundamentally against absolutes.

US Voter fraud and dead people electing US governors is HSH-Prince-Eric example.

I am more concerned about you trying to trying to portray me as saying this one factor is the absolute difference, when I am fundamentally against absolutes.

Yes, I know its his example. But you quoted and said if they had taken it into consideration it would have changed the rankings to put the US below Venezuela. You did not say that other factors also put the US below Venezuela, you just quoted the voter fraud example and said that if they took that into account the US would be lower. So either there are other factors that would require the US to be ranked lower, in which case your original statement "Had they taken (voter fraud) into consideration.. the US would be ranked lower than Venezuela" is wrong, or voter fraud is in fact the one difference according to you that would push the US below Venezuela.

heck.. you almost convinced all of NSG :D

I don't need to convince anyone. They agree with me to begin with.



BTW, the question still stands:

The question has been answered. Look at their methodology, and the degree of quality they utilized.

Yes, I know its his example. But you quoted and said if they had taken it into consideration it would have changed the rankings to put the US below Venezuela. You did not say that other factors also put the US below Venezuela, you just quoted the voter fraud example and said that if they took that into account the US would be lower. So either there are other factors that would require the US to be ranked lower...of course there is other factors that could be taken into consideration depending on the Bias of the Pollster/Researcher/Journalist.. :rolleyes:

Factors that should/could be researched if you want to qualify the Bush Gov:

Presidential privilege to arbitrarily declare anyone he dont like an enemy combatant.
Power to kidnap and Torture.
Guantanamo.
Voter fraud/ Electronic Machines./Dead peoples/etc
etc

meh..

I wouldt worry. For me this "The Economist" rankings has zero credibility.

besides them giving good scores to traditionally democratic European Countries + Canada +Oz (easy call anyways)... these rankings should be double checked.

Likely they are and have been. This is The Economist.

of course there is other factors that could be taken into consideration depending on the Bias of the Pollster/Researcher/Journalist.. :rolleyes:

Factors that should/could be researched if you want to qualify the Bush Gov:

Presidential privilege to arbitrarily declare anyone he dont like an enemy combatant.
Power to kidnap and Torture.
Guantanamo.
Voter fraud/ Electronic Machines./Dead peoples/etc
etc

Electronic touch screen voting machines are not voter fraud, and there has been no evidence that such fraud has ever occurred, you luddite.

Oh, and the Bush administration is well on its way out the door, with virtually no direct damage to the American democratic tradition.

(there was no voter fraud with) Electronic touch screen voting machines...You are entitled to your opinion.


shrugs.

...and there has been no evidence that such fraud has ever occurred, you luddite.

Oh, and the Bush administration is well on its way out the door.(Bush is going out)
That should get US a better scores in the "Democracy" rankings.. indeed.

of course there is other factors that could be taken into consideration depending on the Bias of the Pollster/Researcher/Journalist.. :rolleyes:

Factors that should/could be researched if you want to qualify the Bush Gov:

Presidential privilege to arbitrarily declare anyone he dont like an enemy combatant.
Power to kidnap and Torture.
Guantanamo.
Voter fraud/ Electronic Machines./Dead peoples/etc
etc

Then you should have said that from the start.

The violations of civil liberties at Guantanamo are mostly directed at the citizens of other nations, not the people in the US itself. And as much as I disagree with with 'enemy combatant' status, renditions, torture and detention without trial I also recognise that such incidents are rare and do not interfere with the American political process. If people were being detained without trial or tortured for speaking out against Bush in the US then it would have a serious impact on the US' score in the civil liberties category. In fact, as I understand from previous reports when such incidents were at their peak the US had one of the worst scores in the Western hemisphere for civil liberties. But the Index of Democracy looks at more than a handful of factors. There are a total of 60 different requirements, and the US scores higher than Venezuela on most of them.

of course there is other factors that could be taken into consideration depending on the Bias of the Pollster/Researcher/Journalist.. :rolleyes:
So, anything that doesn't put Ecuador, a country that can't even get its leaders to to complete their terms in office, above the USA in terms of being a functional demoracy is biased?

Factors that should/could be researched if you want to qualify the Bush Gov:
It's taken this long before Bush comes out. I'm amazed.

Presidential privilege to arbitrarily declare anyone he dont like an enemy combatant.
Power to kidnap and Torture.
Guantanamo.
You can still do these and be a democracy, so long as they don't interfere with the democratic process domestically - which these haven't. Not that it makes them in any way justifiable.

Voter fraud/ Electronic Machines./Dead peoples/etc
etc
That would count for something if there weren't problems in your favourite latin American states.

According to The Economist, only twelve countries deserve a score of 9 or higher (out of 10) in terms of democracy.

The top 10 are Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada and Switzerland. In joint eleventh place are Ireland and New Zealand. All other countries rank lower than 9.

A total of 29 countries are described as "functioning democracies"; Uruguay, ranked 29th, has a score of 7.96. Then come "flawed democracies" and "hybrid regimes", bringing the total number of democracies to 112. (Iraq is ranked 112th, with a score of 4.01)

Then come 55 "authoritarian regimes".

This map shows the top 12 in palest blue, compared with other countries:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2425/tbdct7.jpg

Full list here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index).

The US didn't make it to the top ten on another international test AGAIN?!??! We seem to suck cock when it comes to these things.

Then you should have said that from the start.

The violations of civil liberties at Guantanamo are mostly directed at the citizens of other nations, not the people in the US itself. And as much as I disagree with with 'enemy combatant' status, renditions, torture and detention without trial I also recognise that such incidents are rare and do not interfere with the American political process. If people were being detained without trial or tortured for speaking out against Bush in the US then it would have a serious impact on the US' score in the civil liberties category. In fact, as I understand from previous reports when such incidents were at their peak the US had one of the worst scores in the Western hemisphere for civil liberties. But the Index of Democracy looks at more than a handful of factors. There are a total of 60 different requirements.....and the US scores higher than Venezuela on most of them.I can see Bush gets better scores.

The question is why?
The question is still standing.

You are entitled to your opinion.


shrugs.

Do you have any evidence that any has ever happened? Because if you do, I'd love to see it.

I for one have worked extensively with the Diebold Votematic touch screen machines, am familiar with their programming and with the physical security measures in place around them.

The US didn't make it to the top ten on another international test AGAIN?!??! We seem to suck cock when it comes to these things.
I'm no fan of the United States, but in all fairness, it's much easier for smaller countries to make it to the top of all such international classifications. The bigger the country, the more it will be pulled towards the average score by its sheer size and diversity of political/economic/social climates.

It's taken this long before Bush comes out. I'm amazed.Bush is the President of the US. or not?

Do you have any evidence that any has ever happened?No I dont.

in all fairness, it's much easier for smaller countries to make it to the top of all such international classifications. true true

I can see Bush gets better scores.

The question is why?
The question is still standing.

Look through the 60 questions and show me how Venezuela scores better than the US.

You also seem to have some sort of obsession that the democracy index is a rating which solely reflects the political party currently in power. It is reflective of the political process as a whole - it takes into account the activites of all political parties in the US and Venezuela, not just the Bush and Chavez administrations.

I can see Bush gets better scores.

The question is why?
The question is still standing.

Let's see...

George Bush never led a failed coup d'etat against a democratically elected government.
George Bush has never had supreme executive and legislative power vested in himself.
George Bush has not attempted to restructure the basic form of the US Constitution to his own personal and political benefit.
George Bush has not used government resources for direct campaign-related expenditures.
The US Congress is in the control of a party in opposition to the President.
The US Government has been fairly transparent, and its behaviors are easily observed.
The US Government is fairly effective in its ability to implement policy.
The US Government is fairly uncorrupted.
The list goes on and on.

No I dont.

Then you have no reason to believe that fraud related to electronic voting systems has ever occurred.

Bush is the President of the US. or not?
Yes. Your point?

dp

Yes. Your point?when rating the US Gov.. the first thing I am going to look at is George W. Bush


You dont like me rating the Chimp? too bad.

I did, and the question is still standing:

On which questions specifically does Venezuela perform better? As in quote the exact questions from the questionnaire. I already showed you two where the US scores better - prove me wrong by quoting some where Venezuela scores better.

Look through the 60 questions and show me how Venezuela scores better than the US.I did, and the question is still standing:

No, no it doesn't. Not in the slightest.

The only thing that's saying anything is how desperately you're clinging to your preconceived notions about who is democratic and who is not, regardless of displayed facts.What displayed Facts? What displayed Facts makes Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela Flawed Democracies while -at the same time- making the US a Non-Flawed Democracy?

when rating the US Gov.. the first thing I am going to look at is George W. Bush


You dont like me rating the Chimp? too bad.

George W Bush is neither the US government nor the US political process - he is only a part. An entity can only be accurately judged by the sum of its parts.

prove me wrong by quoting some where ...You (and the Economist) are calling them Flawed Democracies while -at the same time- declaring the US a Non-Flawed Democracy.
them= the American Leftist Democracies (Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela)

You are the one claiming the higher moral ground, The burden of proof is on you.

You (and the Economist) are degrading the American Leftist Democracies (Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela).. you are calling them Flawed Democracies.

The burden of proof is on you.

If you insist. On top of the two I already demonstrated;

"Is the legislature the supreme political body, with a clear supremacy over other branches of government?"

"Government is free of undue influence by the military or the security services."

"Is the functioning of government open and transparent, with sufficient public access to information?"

"How pervasive is corruption?"

"Is the civil service willing and capable of implementing government policy?"

"Is there a free electronic media?"

"Is there a free print media?"

"Is media coverage robust? Is there open and free discussion of public issues, with a reasonable diversity of opinions?"

"Do citizens enjoy basic security?"

"Extent to which private property rights protected and private business is free from undue government influence."

So there you go - 12 reasons why the US should be above Venezuela on the democracy index.

when rating the US Gov.. the first thing I am going to look at is George W. Bush


You dont like me rating the Chimp? too bad.
Rating Bush is completely different to rating the state of US democracy.

I was a little surprised to see Italy as a flawed democracy.

One at a time debate.


"Is the legislature the supreme political body, with a clear supremacy over other branches of government?"I would say that in the US Congress has no clear supremacy over Bush.

one clear example was when the US Congress Majority leaders tried to stop the surge.

they bended over and pulled down their pants.

I'm no fan of the United States, but in all fairness, it's much easier for smaller countries to make it to the top of all such international classifications. The bigger the country, the more it will be pulled towards the average score by its sheer size and diversity of political/economic/social climates.
And that's exactly why Togo, Guinea, etc. are at the bottom of the table.

I was a little surprised to see Italy as a flawed democracy.
Berlusconi is the reason. Italy will recover, however, to it's typical democracy level of 'meh' soon enough.

I was a little surprised to see Italy as a flawed democracy.

Blame Berlusconi ;) Complete mediacontrol is good for ratings, but not rating ;)

The questions asked were sort of wierd though. A lot had to do with the perception of the population, which doesn't matter very much in determining whether a nation is a democracy or not.

One at a time debate.

I would say that in the US the Congress has no clear supremacy over Bush.

one clear example was when the Congress Majority leaders tried to stop the surge.

they bended over and pulled down their pants.

The fact that they ended up agreeing on an issue does not give Bush superiority over Congress. Furthermore, with enough of a majority Congress can pass laws regardless of what Bush thinks about them, giving Congress clear superiority - consider the recent water bill.

The fact that they ended up agreeing on an issue does not give Bush superiority over Congress.Bush imposed his will on the Democrats. Anyone with a TV set know that.

The fact that they ended up agreeing on the Iraq Surge does not give Bush superiority over Congress.Bush imposed his will on the Democrat majority. Anyone with a TV set knows that.

I'm afraid to ask, but I have to be brave. So, this Economist thing is total bullshit...

So, what/which coutries should top the list of 'Most democratic countries' according to OcceanDrive?

So, what/which coutries should top the list of 'Most democratic countries' according to OcceanDrive?

What was the name of that seafort again ? One man, one vote seems quite democratic ;)

I'm afraid to ask, but I have to be brave. So, this Economist thing is total bullshit...

So, what/which coutries should top the list of 'Most democratic countries' according to OcceanDrive?probably the ones on the list.
Like I said some 80% of the Countries in the list are correctly rated.. just like the FIFA ratings.

There should be only 2 categories; Democracies and Non-Democracy.
Calling a bunch of them Flawed Democracy or Hybrid Democracy is Bullshit.
Either you are a Democracy or you are not.

If there is proven fraud at the Elections then It cannot be called a Democracy.. until Democracy is re-established by fair elections.

probably the ones on the list.
Like I said some 80% of the Countries in the list are correctly rated.. just like the FIFA ratings.

There should be only 2 categories; Democracies and Non-Democracy.
Calling a bunch of them Flawed Democracy or Hybrid Democracy is Bullshit.
Either you are a Democracy or you are not.

If there is proven fraud at the Elections then It cannot be called a Democracy.. until Democracy is re-established by fair elections.
Quite.

4 categories gives a more interesting looking map though.

Venezuela Quiz Show, is it? Yay!


"Is the legislature the supreme political body, with a clear supremacy over other branches of government?" No.

"Government is free of undue influence by the military or the security services."
No. If anything, the venezuelan government is married to its military.

"Is the functioning of government open and transparent, with sufficient public access to information?"
No. There, you know what he wants you to know, otherwise you're opposition, and thus viable for regular beatings.

"How pervasive is corruption?"
Vast, being paternalism instead of merit a requirement in the filling of public jobs (go figure in a populist government).

"Is the civil service willing and capable of implementing government policy?"
Not willing, but it's not like they have a choice.

"Is there a free electronic media?"
Yes, for now...

"Is there a free print media?"
There is a Chavist print media. Does that count? Didn't think so.

"Is media coverage robust? Is there open and free discussion of public issues, with a reasonable diversity of opinions?"
Not really. Discuss things at your own risk, but don't complain if your TV Station or Newspaper is shut down for not, say, "Renewing its license".

"Do citizens enjoy basic security?"
If they're not sided with Chavez, basic security gets a lot worse.

"Extent to which private property rights protected and private business is free from undue government influence."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! There is no such thing as private property rights there, bud!

Now let's sum it up a bit, and voilá! Venezuela is a pretty much flawed democracy. Actually, that and Hybrid Government are euphemisms when talking about Venezuela.

So there you go - 12 answers that OD will try to avoid by pointing some inocuous detail, as he always do. Again I say, the Economist wasn't the only to point this. Freedom House and several others will continue to place these governments as the crap they are.

4 categories gives a more interesting lookingmap though.:confused:
wha...?
...


ok.. I surrender. I give up.

I am tired.. and I have work to do..

## goes AFK (Elvis has left the building)

If this is about history.. Then why is Eastern Europe ranked about equal with Mexico. ??

If you're really curious, there is an explanation here (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf). I think the link was in the OP, but maybe you didn't see it.

"Is the civil service willing and capable of implementing government policy?"
Not willing, but it's not like they have a choice.

OH! How very, very Venezuelan thing!!!

LOL

EDIT: And before you read anything in to it; I'm a civil servant in a 'functioning democracy'.

:confused:
wha...?
...


ok.. I surrender. I give up.

I am tired.. and I have work to do..

## goes AFK (Elvis has left the building)
All I meant is that average Joe likes colours. He prefers a map with four colours over one with two colours.

No need to take your toys and leave on my account.

All I meant is that average Joe likes colours. He prefers a map with four colours over one with two colours.

Well, if ever he wants two colours, here's a map of countries which claim to be democracies (in blue), and countries which cheerfully admit they're dictatorships (in red: the Holy See, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the U.A.E., Oman, Swaziland, Bhutan, Myanmar and Bahrain).

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1450/tbdin6.jpg

Full-scale map here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Claims_Of_Demoracy.png).

Well, if ever he wants two colours, here's a map of countries which claim to be democracies (in blue), and countries which cheerfully admit they're dictatorships (in red: the Holy See, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the U.A.E., Oman, Swaziland, Bhutan, Myanmar and Bahrain).

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1450/tbdin6.jpg

Full-scale map here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Claims_Of_Demoracy.png).

Your map of two colors pleases me.

Bush imposed his will on the Democrat majority. Anyone with a TV set knows that.

TV ≠ reality. If Congress went along with Bush, it was because they agreed to. Bush can't "impose his will" on Congress. Especially with ratings as low as his.

Your map of two colors pleases me.
You're obviously not average, then.

You're obviously not average, then.

Clearly, I'm above average in my toleration of bi-coloredness. But some rightists proport that bi-coloreds shouldn't be together for the sake of public decency. I ask you: HOW CAN I GET INFORMATION FROM A MAP THAT"S ALL BLUE??!?!?!

The thing is, you shouldn't read only the Economist. They are very heavily biased towards their favoured economic ideology, and will interpret any story to make it fit within that bias. I read it from time to time, but quite quickly it feels like being thumped over the head with the Wealth of Nations by an automaton. Its ideological repetitiveness is tiring.

Well, seeing as their favored economic ideology is really the only one that works in the world today, I'm not sure what the competition would be. The Worker's World Weekly?

I am fundamentally against absolutes.

Either you are a Democracy or you are not.

Irony just means 'a bit like iron' to you, doesn't it?

US should be lower than it is. It's hardly democratic or even much of a republic. They should also use republic instead of democracy.

US should be lower than it is. It's hardly democratic or even much of a republic. They should also use republic instead of democracy.

In the modern world, there isn't much of a difference between a democracy and a republic. The two terms are essentially interchangeable.

Why do you think the US is not a democracy?

I'm sick of the Swedes winning everything, they are even winning in conservative newspapers dammit :p

The thing is, you shouldn't read only the Economist. They are very heavily biased towards their favoured economic ideology, and will interpret any story to make it fit within that bias. I read it from time to time, but quite quickly it feels like being thumped over the head with the Wealth of Nations by an automaton. Its ideological repetitiveness is tiring.

I've always wanted to see if I could set the expensive newspaper on (hypothetical) fire by getting a debate going on something stupid like prison privatization

I suspect implosion of a black hole scale

Well, seeing as their favored economic ideology is really the only one that works in the world today, I'm not sure what the competition would be. The Worker's World Weekly?

1) wrong, capitalism in absolute form never works nor does an economic theory based on limitless growth and supply

2) I personally made the mistake of looking things up myself and getting educated on the issues instead of having some shady editor think for me

In the modern world, there isn't much of a difference between a democracy and a republic. The two terms are essentially interchangeable.

Why do you think the US is not a democracy?

Does your vote truly matter when deciding who is the next president?

Why do you think the US is not a democracy?Oh!, this should be entertaining...

Well, seeing as their favored economic ideology is really the only one that works in the world today, I'm not sure what the competition would be. The Worker's World Weekly?

Don't be so simplistic. Do you actually read The Economist? Their position is dogmatic extreme neoliberalism, clung to with the simplistic insistence of unwavering ideological commitment. Anything that hints at social legislation, even mildly, is considered wrong - an offence to the purity of the Market.

That's not to say that the newspaper is rubbish. But it has its limitations, and should never be your only source.


I've always wanted to see if I could set the expensive newspaper on (hypothetical) fire by getting a debate going on something stupid like prison privatization

I suspect implosion of a black hole scale

Heh. That would be entertaining.

Does your vote truly matter when deciding who is the next president?

I live in the District of Columbia and I'm a Republican, so no, not really (the District votes 90%+Democrat).

It is true that no one individual vote matters when deciding the President. I'm not sure what your point is.

Don't be so simplistic. Do you actually read The Economist? Their position is dogmatic extreme neoliberalism, clung to with the simplistic insistence of unwavering ideological commitment. Anything that hints at social legislation, even mildly, is considered wrong - an offence to the purity of the Market.
Which is why the result of the study is so delicious. It must sting them to see the Nordic countries way up there.

Don't be so simplistic. Do you actually read The Economist? Their position is dogmatic extreme neoliberalism, clung to with the simplistic insistence of unwavering ideological commitment. Anything that hints at social legislation, even mildly, is considered wrong - an offence to the purity of the Market.

That's a bit unfair. The Economist supports both free healthcare and tight environmental regulation of business. They have given support to and opposed both left and right wing candidates and they are highly critical of George W Bush.

Well, well, well - who'd have thought that Germany would be ranked so high on the list? :p

Guess democracy does work here after all, eh?

Don't be so simplistic. Do you actually read The Economist? Their position is dogmatic extreme neoliberalism, clung to with the simplistic insistence of unwavering ideological commitment. Anything that hints at social legislation, even mildly, is considered wrong - an offence to the purity of the Market.


This is a bit extreme, there is actually a difference of opinion amongst its editors but they do share a libertarian viewpoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance

If you look at different stances on different viewpoints that have been seen in the publication, it does tend to contradict itself. Looking at the endorsements it again doesn't seem to have a concrete view, wavering back and fourth from conservatives to labour, even supporting red Ken (a socialist).

It also opposes "private healthcare instead of some form national healthcare system, though it is not opposed to people choosing private health instead of that offered by the state. " This is not exactly extreme neoliberalism.

That's a bit unfair. The Economist supports both free healthcare and tight environmental regulation of business. They have given support to and opposed both left and right wing candidates and they are highly critical of George W Bush.

True. But they supported Kerry because they considered that he was no threat to neoliberal economics, and that any attempts he might make at social policies would fail. They considered (from what I recall from reading them at that time) that Kerry would be better for the economy.

You're right about healthcare; I was a little hasty. It's an exception, though. For the most party, the Economist will use any excuse to turn any conceivable topic into a push for "more free market" (in any country).

That's a bit unfair. The Economist supports both free healthcare and tight environmental regulation of business. They have given support to and opposed both left and right wing candidates and they are highly critical of George W Bush.

ah, but this is a European newspaper

US should be lower than it is. It's hardly democratic or even much of a republic. They should also use republic instead of democracy.

That's a pretty radical unsupported claim...

I've always wanted to see if I could set the expensive newspaper on (hypothetical) fire by getting a debate going on something stupid like prison privatization
The government's already gone there I'm afraid...

For the most party, the Economist will use any excuse to turn any conceivable topic into a push for "more free market" (in any country).
Actually, what they push for is efficiency, effectiveness and transparency. They make exceptions to the "free market" solution, but they never make exceptions to the above.

The thing is that a market, when properly regulated (which they also call for on pretty much any issue - I've learned more about regulatory agencies from this paper than at uni) is efficient, effective and transparent. While it may be possible for government to achieve the same, it rarely does, and you really wouldn't expect it in the US or the Third World.

ah, but this is a European newspaper

Newspaper? The Economist hardly reports. It's much more a collection of editorials and opinions.

True. But they supported Kerry because they considered that he was no threat to neoliberal economics, and that any attempts he might make at social policies would fail. They considered (from what I recall from reading them at that time) that Kerry would be better for the economy.

You're right about healthcare; I was a little hasty. It's an exception, though. For the most party, the Economist will use any excuse to turn any conceivable topic into a push for "more free market" (in any country).

I think you're being too polite. I seem to remember them supporting Kerry for no better reason than 'he isn't Bush' rather than having any positive opinion of Kerry. They were absolutely scathing in article about Bush a few months ago on the legacy of his administration. This represents what I like about the Economist - even when confronted with a leader who shares the same ideological opinions they aren't afraid to criticise them, unlike some other publications who will defend a person because of their political party rather than political actions. Just last week they even praised the Communist leader of West Bengal as one of the best politician in India.

Just last week they even praised the Communist leader of West Bengal as one of the best politician in India.

Wow, you so didn't read the article.

It actually said he was out of touch, grossly unpopular, and a former kingmaker who's up the creek in national politics and in their 'stronghold'.

Hardly 'praise'.

"India needs more leaders like Mr Bhattacharjee, who is a talented administrator, even if his political views remain enigmatic."

Like I said, the Economist isn't afraid to criticise even when they are in support of a leader. The article acknowledged his failings in trying to create Special Economic Zones but also praises the jobs he has helped create by attracting industry to the region.

The government's already gone there I'm afraid...

well at least they haven't gone back to prison ships

...arse:( (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6072454.stm)

I'd say that there are some idiosyncracies of the US system that probably dropped our score - such as the near-total hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.

Also, I'd like to take this moment to point out that out of the entire Middle East, only Israel and Palestine are even "flawed democracies" while Iraq and Lebanon are hybrid regimes. Israel ranked as a flawed democracy because, well, it IS flawed. They have major problems with corruption.

"#79. Palestine - Flawed Democracy."

Well, yes, I suppose having your two main political parties in a state of armed conflict with each other is rather a flaw...
Seriously, how the heck did it get such a relatively high rating?
maybe it's more a sad state of world affairs than anything positive abour Palestine. The fact there's over 80 countries out there worse off, democracy-wise, is a pretty sad indication about the world today

I never hear of "The economist".. but just looking at the map palettes.. I can now officially tell you its total Bullshit.

Here are the Keys, Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela .. are ranked lowest in South America. (the only 3 dark-blue in SouthAmerica)

Iran is ranked equal with Saudi Arabia.
Russia is ranked better than Iran.
Russia is ranked equal with Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela.

How the hell can they call Bolivia,Ecuador,Venezuela FLAWED Democracies.. while calling the US a NON-Flawed Democracy.
It's probably to do with the criteria they use.
Sure, Russia isn't much better than a functioning dictatorship under Putin but it does hold elections that are open to all.
Iran on the other hand has a Supreme Leader, who is a religious figure selected by an Assembly of Experts. Said assembly is a deliberative body of just 86 Mujtahids. Having the most powerful person chosen by <0.0002% of the adult population is hardly what anyone could call democratic.
Thus the Economist prob just went on how and when elections are held and who is eligible and possibly not on whether they are fairly run.